Pentagon halts F-35 deliveries over contractual dispute
janes.com
janes.com
Thankfully the F35 is so overpriced it is probably not in the final list for the next Swiss fighter plane purchase. [2]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba63OVl1MHw [2] https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/fuenf-kampfjet-typen-in-der-ueber...
Jack of all trades, master of none.
In all air combat training scenarios, F-35s blow F-16s out of the skies.
Russia still has no meaningful way to interdict F-35. Their 5gen fighter is still early prototype, and the S-400 munition upgrade capable to tackle F-35 is still in development with multiple setbacks.
You may loathe American military industrial complex and point out the cost of the programme, sure, but it's the best aircraft in the skies for now. With some headroom.
F-16s, sure, and we keep hearing about this, but I wonder how they fare against more modern fighters though, such as Rafale, Eurofighter, or whatever.
Rafale had the reputation to be an overpriced, goal-missing† multirole beast, but apparently the U.S.A would not let France take that crown for too long, and boy does it seem they beat the crap out of us on that front now.
† especially when it wasn't able to land on the Charles de Gaulle carrier in early years of development.
(No idea if F-35 were deployed by Israel at all)
How many F-16's? And what block? In order to be great it has to shoot down a LOT of F-16's to motivate the cost. A problem with that being that it can only carry 4 radar guided missiles internally (so while remaining stealthy). If it carries more, then it's just a very expensive non-stealth fighter. If it carries just 4, it's rather vulnerable to
> but it's the best aircraft in the skies for now.
What's the "best aircraft" isn't really an interesting measure. What's most interesting to any buyer is for X billion dollars, and N years of flying, what capability can I get? In such a comparison you have to weigh in the per-hour flying costs, the cost to aquire and train, what investments you get locally (can you manufacture some part locally or would you have to buy from lockheed?) and so on and so forth.
Long term, strategically, cost is important, sure. Prolonged world war, major players scale. Short term, no. And in a conflict, minor players have short term only operational horizon at their disposal.
> What's most interesting to any buyer is for X billion dollars, and N years of flying, what capability can I get?
Norway found the cost manageable, in competition with other bidders. And for comparison, a municipal garage of the parliament in Oslo now stands at the cost of three F-35 acquisitions.
Not sure why that's an argument against the cost effectiveness of something? If you could do X for N dollars or 2xN dollars then it's more cost effective to do it for N dollars assuming the mission can be performed with either.
> Norway found the cost manageable, in competition with other bidders.
I think it's safe to say there was a "political cost" considered here too. That is, what would be the long term cost of not "helping" NATO allies and the other F-35 buyers by pushing the price down through larger sales.
"But while F-22 pilots are confident about the Raptor’s ability to defeat the S-300V4 and the S-400, the Air Force official acknowledged that the stealthy fifth-generation aircraft has never faced off against these next-generation Russian air defenses in actual combat before."
I would not bet my life on it that a current S-400 can't blow an F-35 out of the sky. And considering the Russian habit ob hiding or understating technology, in combination with old Soviet thinking stratagems like the "axe theory", I would say: good luck!
The existing ones are unable to lock on F-22 or F-35. The ground stations under favourable circumstance can possibly see stealth aircraft, but S-300/400 family has active, missile-based guidance, and this is not compensated yet.
Made me look. Found http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/05.html
"""
The theory is known unofficially in the General Staff as the `axe theory'. It is stupid, say the Soviet generals, to start a fist-fight if your opponent may use a knife. It is just as stupid to attack him with a knife if he may use an axe. The more terrible the weapon which your opponent may use, the more decisively you must attack him, and the more quickly you must finish him off. Any delay or hesitation in doing this will just give him a fresh opportunity to use his axe on you. To put it briefly, you can only prevent your enemy from using his axe if you use your own first.
The `axe theory' was put forward in all Soviet manuals and handbooks to be read at regimental level and higher. In each of these one of the main sections was headed `Evading the blow'. These handbooks advocated, most insistently, the delivery of a massive pre-emptive attack on the enemy, as the best method of self-protection. This recommendation was not confined to secret manuals-non-confidential military publications carried it as well.
"""
I think for national armies which are funded by tax payer money the total cost of ownership should be a significant factor when considering what to buy. And should factor in the definition of "best".
I don't know much about aerial warfare. Aren't fighter jets just glorified missile launching platforms nowadays, especially for defensive purposes? What does the extra cost buy for the end user in terms of actual features they are going to use? I suppose the keyfactor of a multirole aircraft is radar that allows tracking and fire control for both aerial and ground targets and a selection of air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles that go with it. What am I missing?
This is one of the huge strengths of this platform. The ability manage a battlefield, including other fighters/bombers/ground troops as well as remote forces.
Ukraine did just that prior to 2014.
Otherwise, your weapons should be a practical deterrent to an aggressor.
I wasn't claiming a modern fighter is not a critical part of this equation. I was merely asking what does actually "best" mean in this case. If I get you on my fire control radar and you get me on yours and we both fire missiles, it seems to me the missile and the radar is far more important part of this equation than the avionics platform where they are.
So, practical tactical features...
What happens is F-35 lets you fire missiles a lot earlier than your opponent. If they see you at all.
The 'lock on radar' part is what all Russian missiles struggle with currently, a situation they hastily attempt to remedy.
Thanks, that's a fairly critical feature.
Can I humbly ask you for citation?
As it stands right now, the Swiss Air Force is a 9 to 5 operation, and they operationally can't answer threats at night. Not sure that fancy F-35s would change that...
The problem is maintenance costs availability rate. F-35 is a hangar queen.
The costs are however much more manageable than what early critical pieces stipulated.
> It absolutely does matter. This is not municipal bus fleet, capabilities have to match the threats.
Who was the US not matching in capability, such that they needed to develop a new fighter (with incredibly high maintenance costs) to compete?
The objective for Norway is to have efficient combat airforce, not an airshow crew or a check mark on some NATO list, "has fixed wing aircraft".
Now, to the maintenance costs, so far they do not exceed the rates calculated on purchase, and are lowest among the 5th generation fighters of the world (the only other one being F-22).
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-main-differences-between-...
Fighter that is impossible destroy and carries 4 medium range missiles can kill max 4 enemies per sortie and it can be only in one place at the time. In practice Pk ratio of missiles missiles etc. brings it down significantly.
If you get two cheaper fighters for the same price, they can cover larger area, loiter twice as much, carry 8 missiles and fly more sorties for the same money.
In my country there’s now pushback against the F35 but there seems to be a push to obtain them irregardless of criticisms. This makes me wonder if there’s political maneuvering by the US to keep the militaries linked.
Traditionally US allies could choose from the hi or lo options according to their budget; F-4 vs F-5, F-15 vs F-16.
But if a nation now wants to buy something US-compatible for the next 50 years they now have to stump up for the big F-35 since the lo tier has effectively been discontinued ( and the hi-hi tier is the unexportable F-22 ).
So we have the likes of Denmark buying 27, basing 7 in the USA for training and having about 10 operational out of maintenance. Why bother?
I was under the impression that the main difference between these was not price, but the kind of mission they are designed for. Like you don’t get one or the other because of budget, but because of your aerial combat needs.
Huge expensive aircraft carriers fitted "for but not with" actual aircraft.
But hey, we have nukes and I think we are forced to buy F35 to carry them.
The pretense that the decision to buy was democratic was all smoke-and-mirrors imho.
There was no way not to buy.
What is the French connection?
Rafale and Rafaele are two different beasts - one is the name of a plane made by Dassault industries, the other is an Israeli defence company..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Advanced_Defense_System...
I would think that most of the cost of this F-35 is dealing with the problems caused by putting human in the middle.
Having multirole drones would lower the cost a lot, and it would actually likely increase its theoretical effectiveness because you wouldn't have a pilot scared for their life in it.
It would be so scary to go up against a drone multirole fighter, it could pull off the craziest multi-G moves, and it would be fearless.
There must be some technological reason we have moved to this yet.
Drones of this capacity are coming in on the sides, are inevitable if the shit ever hits the fan, and provide tons of advantages. In addition to crazy manoeuvres and no issue being a kamakazi missile you've got machine learning enhancements and teams of remote pilots able to step in fresh to help. They also integrate well with existing forces.
In essence, though, some of the kinds of roles for the F-35 are roles we still want human eyeballs for the forseeable future. The drone model is untested as the default solution, so we "need" the aircraft anyways, and the end-product will be some proper SkyNet stuff people are likely to have problems with.
The tech is evolving, but the weapons program answer is that we need both solutions and the F-35 program is unkillable.
https://github.com/andybarry/flight
The F-35 is already ancient, engineering data is likely compromised by potential adversaries and it mainly exists to create jobs in marginal electorates. If WWIII ever comes, the old ways will be forced to face modern reality.
But that aside, the F-35 program was never really about building a fighter jet. It was designed from the beginning as a way to funnel 100s of billions of dollars into the defense industry and to keep that money flowing for decades.
This. It was primarily about international collaboration, not military capability (F-22 is a more capable fighter). Best military technology (with most capable pieces likely highly classified) can never be built as a multi-national project. And there are cheaper ways of boosting international goodwill than funneling hundreds of billions into favored defense contractors. Government :(. My 2c.
Also, could one build a local positioning system that has a few ground (or even airborne) positions broadcast their position and a time signal, with the missile using that info to compute its position?
In _Russia_ during _war with Russia_? Sure, go ahead, you drive the truck and I'll monitor your progress and provide snarky commentary from home.
The AI isn't good enough yet. We have self-driving cars running into things, fighter jets are an order of magnitude more complex.
China has huge AI potential, and I'm not sure you do or can speak for them; AI may increasingly be a 'package' that's brought into tech, so I'm not sure how much difference morals make in its development, if the end product has universal plug-in potential?
- ed
Unless, I suppose, the smart, utopianistic & pacifistic people who form AI in the first place deeply-embed moral stuctures that cause AI to somehow magically recognise its use for malintent and then auto-terminate... . Unlikely!